CR 94-101 Mainstreet Reconstruction
-. -.
\ y
o
/
. June 7, 1994 Council Report: 94-101
o ""
P K \
MAINSTREET RECONSTRUCTION FROM 5TH AVENUE TO WASHINGTON AVENUE
ACCEPT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDER PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: "Move to accept
the Mainstreet feasibility report prepared bv RLK and Associates as
ordered on April 19. 1994 and adopt Resolution 94-54 orderinq a public
hearinq for July 5. 1994."
Overview.
The City Council at its regular meeting of April 19, 1994 was
presented with a staff report regarding the possible reconstruction of
this section of Mainstreet. The report included a letter form MnDOT
disapproving the city's request to install a slip ramp from T.H. 169
onto Mainstreet. Staff recommended in the report that Council
consider reconstructing this street without a slip ramp and authorize
RLK and Associates to prepare a feasibility report on the potential
street reconstruction. Council subsequently concurred with staff's
. recommendation and directed RLK and Associates to prepare a
feasibility report on this matter.
RLK and Associates have completed their report and have determined the
project to be feasible. The process they used ln determining the
feasibility of the project included two informational meetings with
the property owners, and many other meetings with individual property
owners. Council is now at a point where they should consider
accepting the feasibility report and ordering a public hearing.
Primary Issues to Consider
o What are the current conditions of this street?
o How does the feasibility report address concerns from the
property owners?
o How is the project proposed to be funded?
o Should the Council accept the feasibility report?
o Should the Council order a public hearing?
supporting Information
o Analysis of Issues
o Resolution No. 94-54
o Feasibility Report
c~~~
/.. /,L) ~
. Lee t/Gustaf n, . blic Works Director
Council Report 94-101
Page 2
. Analysis of Issues
0 What are the current conditions of this street?
This section of Mainstreet presently exhibits wear and distress
due to the traffic loadings. This is illustrated by alligator
cracking and potholes. The sidewalks and curbing are also
showing severe distress due to a number of reasons. The sidewalk
is also a liability for the city due to the hazardous conditions
that presently exist.
0 How does the feasibility report address concerns from the
property owners?
From our discussions with the property owners ln this area of
Mainstreet, we have discovered that they have four major concerns
with regard to this proposed project. The concerns they have
raised are listed below, along with a description of how this
project will address those concerns.
1. Increased visibility - We have been working with MnDOT to
determine whether or not some of the last few noise wall
panels could be taken down and replaced with landscaping to
increase the visibility of Mainstreet, and also soften the
hard look of the wall. MnDOT has indicated that they may be
. receptive to this idea as long as the city assumes some
responsibilities and liabilities. All the property owners
felt that his would help resolve their problem, and wanted
the city to continue pursuing the idea. The maln concern
from the city's perspective in reviewing this concept is to
ensure there would be no negative impacts to the residential
neighborhood to the north.
2. Left Turn Movements - Many of the property owners indicated
that left turn movements are a problem especially during
Burger King's rush hours. One method described in the
feasibility report to address this problem is to establish a
common center left turn lane. One property owner was unsure
whether this would help his business so it was decided to
recommend to Council that this concept be implemented
immediately to try it out prior to the July 5 public hearing
for this project. staff has included a separate agenda item
to implement this idea.
3 . Business Disruption - Everyone of the business owners
expressed an opinion on business disruption. staff assured
everyone that we would do everything we could to minimize
disruption similar to the procedures used when the other
segments of Mainstreet were upgraded.
.
council Report 94-101
Page 3
. 4. Assessments - Potential assessments are always a concern in
a construction project. The feasibility report is proposing
an assessment of $68.00 per front foot. This assessment is
slightly higher than the $63.19 per front foot that was
assessed against the Mainstreet property owners west of 5th
Avenue. The reason for the increase is due to inflation.
Most property owners felt this assessment was reasonable.
o How is the project proposed to be funded?
The project is proposed to be funded as follows:
o Property Assessments 96,870
o Private Property Assessments
(fire lines, etc.) 15,000
o utility Funds 71,500
o city Improvement Policy 30% by 95,220
the city - G.O. Bonds
o Tax Increment Financing 201,650
Total Revenue $480,240
o Should the Council accept the feasibility report?
Representatives from RLK and Associates will be present at the
Council meeting to make an oral presentation of their feasibility
. report, a copy of which is attached. staff finds the report to
be complete and recommends its acceptance.
o Should the Council order a public hearing?
Council ordered the report to be prepared without the benefit of
a petition. Informational hearings have been held with the
property owners, and it appears there is general support for the
project. However, council would most certainly feel more
comfortable proceeding on the project if it heard directly from
the property owners. Staff therefore recommends Council order a
public hearing for March 15, 1994 for this purpose. As Council
is aware, the public hearing is also a mandatory step in the
assessment process, and this public hearing would fulfill this
requirement if the project was to proceed forward.
.
.
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 94-54
RESOLUTION ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER RECONSTRUCTING MAIN STREET
BETWEEN 5TH AVENUE AND WASHINGTON AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized and directed the preparation of a
report with reference to the improvement of Mainstreet
between 5th Avenue and Washington Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the engineering firm of RLK and Associates has prepared the
aforesaid report for the improvement herein described.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of Hopkins,
Minnesota:
1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvement in
accordance with the report and the assessment of
abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of
the street improvements within this section of
Mainstreet pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429
at an estimated total cost of the improvement of
. $480,240.
2. A public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers
of the city Hall at 1010 First Street South on Tuesday,
the 5th of July, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. to consider said
improvement. The city clerk shall give mailed and
published notice of said hearing and improvement as
required by law.
Adopted by the city Council of the City of Hopkins this 7 th day of
June, 1994.
By
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jim Genellie, City Clerk
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Prepared By RLK Associates, Ltd.
922 Mainstreet
I Hopkins, MN 55343
June 2, 1994
I
I
----.. .---- - ------ - - - - ---
I Rl~ 922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
I ASSOCIATES LTD. (612) 933-0972
fax: (612) 933-1153
I June 2, 1994
I Mr. Lee Gustafson, P .E.
Director of Public Works
City of Hopkins
I 1010 1st Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
I Re: Feasibility Study Report for the Mainstreet project, 5th Avenue to Washington Avenue
Dear Mr. Gustafson:
I We are pleased to present this feasibility study report for the Mainstreet project from Washington Avenue
to 5th Avenue. This is considered a continuation of the Mainstreet project that was initiated in 1989, Our
I report follows the outline that was presented earlier to you and your staff members and is consistent with
the Scope of Services proposal document dated March 10, 1994.
As YOll know. this document relates to the property owners of this segment of Mainstreet. We have had
I several formal and informal meetings with members oftbe community concerning these improvements. It
is our view that the project presented herein is feasible to construct as is recommended with the finance
plan that is demonstrated. We understand that this document needs to reflect the concerns and issues of the
I property O\vners in coordination with the goals and objectives of the City of Hopkins. During the next few
weeks it is anticipated this document will assist toward the discussion concerning these items. Ultimately,
the City Council must decide whether to proceed with the implementation of this project. We recommend
I that a public hearing be set for the first City Council meeting in July.
A neighborhood meeting is scheduled for June 3 to discuss the engineering feasibility study report. Final
I copies of the study will be transmitted to the City Council for the June 7 City Council meeting. A
representative of RLK Associates will be at the City Council meeting to answer any questions concerning
this report. We would anticipate holding an additional property owner meeting prior to the formal public
I hearing in front oftbe City CounciL Our objective is to address all of the concerns and issues of the
property owners, and have them support the design recommendations during the public hearing.
I Thank you for the support you and your staff have given us during the completion of this phase of the
design activities. We look forward to working with you through the implementation of this vital Mamstreet
improvement project.
I Cordially.
I RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
C?dJ~
I Richard L. Koppy, P.E~
Principal in Charge
I . Civil Engineering . Transportation . Infrastructure Redevelopment
I . Landscape Architecture . Construction Management
I
I
I
I HOPKINS EAST MAINSTREET
I ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY REPORT
JUNE 2, 1994
I
I hereby certiy that this engineering report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision in
I accordance with provisions of the Minnesota State Statute 429.0. I am a duly Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of Minnesota.
I -). .,
, . ; /
y, -V '1/ ': d 7><'~<<=!U
Richard 1. Kapp, ,~
I Minnesota RegistratiOn Number 11083
I I hereby certify that the landscape architecture and streets cape provisions of this report were prepared by
me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Landscape Architect in the State of
II Millnesota.
1L~~A~
I John Dietrich, ASLA
Minnesota Registration Number 18750
I
I
I
Dated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Hopkins East Mainstreet Feasibility Report
Table of Contents
I I. Introduction to the Project
I A. Project location, boundaries and description Page 1
I B. Background on the project Page 1
C. Discussion of the slip-off ramp from Highway # 169 Page 2
I ll. Public Involvement process included with the project
I A. Property owner meetings Page 2
I B. HBCA meeting results Page 3
C. Property owner surveys Page 3
I D. Issues that have been raised as a part of this project Page 3
I ID. Existing Conditions of Infrastructure Analysis Page 4
I IV. Discussion of design alternates of the improvement project
I A. Pavement, sidewalks and curb conditions Page 5
B. Street width and parking considerations Page 5
I C. Street lighting Page 6
D Evaluation of the public utilities within the street, including watermain,
I sanitary sewer and storm sewer Page 6
E. Evaluation of the private utilities within the street including gas,
I telephone, cable TV, and other utilities that are encountered Page 6
F. Landscaping amenities and street furniture Page 6
I G, Setback area improvements Page 7
I I
J
I
I
I . H. Visibility and signage improvements from Highway #169 and 5th Ave. Page 7
* Removal of a portion of the noise wall, entrance signage and landscaping
I * Intersection of 5th A venue and Mainstreet improvements, signage and visibility
L Fire lines for private properties Page 7
I 1. Work on private properties Page 8
K. Traffic study and discussion of impacts Page 8
I V. Construction scheduling and property owner impact in a business area
I A. Methods of undertaking construction to minimize disruption Page 8
I B. Project and construction schedule Page 9
VI. Financial implications of the project
I
I A. MSAS funding implications and availability; project timing impacts Page 9
B. Preliminary funding summary analysis for the project revenues
I and expenditures Page 9
C. Preliminary assessment information PagelO
I VII. Conclusion and Recommendation Page 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT
I
I Project location: The project featured in this engineering feasibility study is for the area on
Mainstreet between 5th Avenue and Washington Avenue in the City ofBopkins. This report
represents a continuation of the study of the Mainstreet improvements that were initiated in 1989.
I The original Feasibility Report dated August 21, 1990, referred to this area as Segment One and
Two.
I Figure One describes the project area that is focused within this study. All of the property owners
adjacent to Mainstreet and members of the adjoining residential neighborhood have been formally
or informally notified of the ongoing study.
I
I Background on the project: In 1990, a feasibility report was completed on the
Mainstreet Reconstruction project from Washington Avenue to Shady Oak Road. This study
consisted of a thorough design analysis of the infrastructure elements of five segments. Each of
I the Mainstreet segments are defined below:
Segment One -- Highway # 169 ramp connection to Mainstreet
I Segment Two -- Washington Avenue to 5th Avenue
I Segment Three -- 5th Avenue to 12th Avenue
Segment Four -- 12th Avenue to 20th Avenue
I Segment Five -- 20th Avenue to Shady Oak Road
I During the public discussion meetings and the City Council public hearings it was decided to
reduce the magnitude of the project by eliminating Segment One and Two from the project
I design. These were deferred to a later date. Subsequently, Segments Three thru Five were
designed and constructed between 1991 and 1993.
I In January 1994, the City Council reviewed the continuation of the Mainstreet project between
Washington Avenue and 5th Avenue. In March, the City Council approved the RLK proposal
which included the preparation of an engineering feasibility study for this segment of Main street.
I The study included the following components:
. Preliminary survey of all field data in the project area;
I
I Page 1
I
I
I . Televising and dye testing of the sanitary sewer;
. Organization of a Design Study group consisting of property owners and interested citizens;
. Preparation of a feasibility study report consisting of a review of at least the following items --
I - Street and utility conditions analysis;
- Parking analysis, bus operation and recommended street design features;
- Lighting design recommendations;
I - Sidewalk and pedestrian amenity review;
- Traffic signal and geometric design revisions to the 5th A venue intersection;
I - Planning of a construction schedule which minimizes disruption to the property owners;
_ Allows design components to be compatible with Mainstreet design west of 5th Avenue;
- Reviews the financial estimates and funding summary of the preliminary design; and
I - Studies the potential ofMSAS designation of this segment of Main street
I Discussion of the slip-off ramp from Highway #169 to ~Iainstreet: In
February, the City Council directed City staff to contact the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) to review a ramp connection to Mainstreet from the exit ramp. The
I information that was submitted by the City to MnDOT is included in the appendix to this report.
On April 14, 1994, MnDOT prepared a response letter to the City indicating that the ramp
connection would not be allowed. Their letter is contained in the appendix material mentioned
I earlier, The City Council reviewed the ramp connection issue at their April 19 City Council
meeting and directed staff to discontinue efforts regarding the ramp connection project. The
property owners were notified of this repsponse at the project "kick-off' meeting on May 6.
I Additionally, a letter dated April 28, 1994 was mailed to all affected property owners notifYing
them of the MnDOT response and the action of the City Council. No further design study activity
I has been done on the ramp connection issue.
I PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
I Property Owner Meetings: The preparation of the feasibility study included several
I property owner meetings. On May 6 the initial property owner meeting was held in the Raspberry
Room of the City Hall. The agenda for the meeting, a copy of the mailing list, a copy of the letter
that was sent to the property owners, and a list of attendees of the meeting are included in the
I appendix to this report The project was introduced at the meeting and a review of the concerns
of the property owners was heard. From the May 6 meeting, several of the property owners
requested specific meetings with RLK at their property to discuss specific concerns. These were
I held during the month of May, 1994. The next property owner meeting is scheduled for June 3 to
discuss the draft copy of the engineering feasibility study,
I Page 2
I
. --
I
I
I HBCA Meeting Project Discussion: On Thursday, May 12,1994, the Hopkins
Business Civic Association heard discussion regarding the East Mainstreet improvement project.
I The discussion was primarily infonnational and no action was taken by the HBCA. Included in
the appendix is a copy of the May 12 HBCA agenda.
I Property Owner Surveys: A property owner infonnation survey questionnaire was
distributed at the meeting to seek further input of the property owners. Several of these surveys
I were received in subsequent weeks from the property owners. A copy of the survey is included in
the appendix.
I Issues Raised As A Part Of This Project: During the meetings with the property
owners, several issues have been raised by the property owners. Within this section of the report
the issues that were brought up at the meetings are listed.
I . Drainage problems on private property -- can they be improved with the street project?
. Assessments for this section of Main street should be the same as the assessments for the
I section of Mainstreet west of 5th Avenue.
. Access during construction is very important. The businesses can't afford to be shut down at
I any time,
. Left turn lane considerations on Mainstreet are important for the Burger King operation and
at 5th Avenue.
I . Obsolete sewer/water sludge tanks should be removed/filled as a part of the Mainstreet
project.
. Additional curb cuts are needed by several businesses. However, there are several cuts that
I can be closed as a result of the improvement project.
. Setbacks should be landscaped but should not obstruct visibility or access to the properties.
. The residential neighborhood to the north was concerned about traffic patterns changing.
I They wanted the traffic issues to be reviewed. They also suggested that truck traffic be
prohibited.
. Parking restrictions, parking allowance and alternates need to be reviewed.
I . How will the project be funded beside the special assessments to the property owners?
. How can we improve the commercial viability of Mainstreet east of 5th Avenue? More
I visibility, signage, access, etc.
. Can we improve the appearance of the Hennepin County railroad right of way between
Excelsior Boulevard, Mainstreet, 5th A venue and Highway # 169?
I . Can we have additional signage and landscaping between the Highway # 169 ramp and
Washington Avenue? Remove a portion of the noise wall for better visibility? Better visual
introduction to Mainstreet!?
I . Fire lines for the business properties, one property owner requested an estimate for a hook-up.
+ Banners are desired to tie this segment of Main street into the westerly segments.
. A pedestrian crosswalk is needed the Walser Automobile dealership.
I Page 3
I
I
I
I
I EXISTING CONDITION OF MAINSTREET INFRASTRUCTURE
This section of the feasibility study includes an analysis of the existing infrastructure within the
Mainstreet right of way east of 5th Avenue. Fundamentally, this material led directly to the cost
I estimate for the improvement of Mainstreet between 5th Avenue and Washington Avenue.
I Gas Main: Replacement of existing main is needed.
U.S. West Telephone: Replacement of the existing underground telephone system is
I needed.
I Northern States Power lines: No impact.
I Cable Television: No impact
Storm Sewer: The system will be replaced as the new project is completed. Capacity is
I adequate.
I Water System: Water mains are looped and sized correctly, It is expected that a couple of
the water services will need to be repaired as part of the construction oftrus project Hydrants
will be replaced with new appurtenances.
I Sanitary Sewer: Spot repairs will be made on the system, but nothing of major
I consequence is planned. The capacity of the system is adequate. A few services may need to be
repaired as the street is reconstructed.
I Curb and Gutter: The existing concrete curbs are in poor condition.
I Street Pavement: The street needs repair and/or replacement. At a minimum, the surface
needs to be reconstructed.
I Sidewalk: Poor condition; hazardous to the pedestrians that use the sidewalk because of the I
obstructions. There are no crosswalks within this segment of Mainstreet. I
I Setback areas: With a few exceptions, setbacks in this area of the City along Mainstreet are
I very well done,
Page 4
,
I
--- ---
I
I
I Trash Receptacles: No receptacles are in place in this section of Main street. While there
I is less pedestrian traffic through this segment than on Mainstreet west of 5th Avenue, a few new
trash receptacles, similar to the ones used on the west Mainstreet project, are proposed.
I Landscaping: There are a few street trees and plantings within this segment on the public
right of way in the setback areas. Additional landscaping would help enhance the area.
I Street Lighting: Lighting conditions and equipment are in reasonable condition.
I Banners: There are no banners or banner holders available within this segment. One property
owner commented that the addition of banners for this segment would help tie it in to the rest of
I Mainstreet
I Street Signage: Adequate, but will need to be replaced if the street lights are replaced.
Traffic Signal at 5th A venue: New hardware. Without any changes to the traffic
I patterns, there is no need for any revisions to the system. The signal was reconstructed during the
west Mainstreet project.
I
I DISCUSSION OF DESIGN ALTERNATES
I Street pavement, curbs and sidewalk: A soils engineering and testing firm will
evaluate the pavement to ascertain whether portions of the base can be salvaged. It may be
possible to re-use pOl1ions of the street section with a new surface. Between 5th Avenue and
I 12th Avenue, this was essentially the construction method that was used. All curb and gutter are
recommended to be replaced. At the time that the curbs are replaced, the driveway aprons should
be replaced. All sidewalk will be replaced with new sidewalk and a small amount of brick
I pavement at the corner of 5th Avenue and Mainstreet. Each property owner will be contacted
regarding any brick paving needs on their private property that would complement the Mainstreet
project.
I
I Street width and parking considerations: Currently, the street is 46 feet wide, face
of curb to face of curb. Parking is allowed in a few locations and restricted elsewhere. There are
I three alternatives that are suggested for further study by the property owners. All of the
Page 5
I
I
I
I alternates suggest the 46 foot width be utilized. This is the same width that was constructed on
Mainstreet west of 5th Avenue.
I (Alternate 1) Current street alignment where parking as allowed in a couple of locations but
generally prohibited between Burger King and 5th Avenue. This alternate would duplicate the
current arrangement of having a turn lane that primarily serves the Burger King business.
I (Alternate 2) Two moving traffic lanes, with a center turn lane for either direction. On street
parking, for the most part, would have to be removed.
I (Alternate 3) Two moving traffic lanes, with parking allowed on both sides of the street and no
turn lanes. This would cause a bottleneck at the Burger King entrance during the lunch time
I period of each day.
I Concept plan drawings have been made of each of these alternates. They need to be reviewed
more thoroughly by the property owners. It appears that Alternate 1 and 2, together, will provide
the most acceptable plan,
I One of these alternates could be implemented on a trail basis before the commencement of
project activities to clarify the impact. There is no pavement reconstruction associated
I with these alternates. They are implemented through the placement of pavement striping.
I Street ligh ting: There are two basic alternates for street lighting. The first alternate
involves the re-use of the existing high level street lighting system, simply refurbishing the poles
I and fixtures. The second alternate would involve removing the high level system and replacing it
with a low level system similar to the "historic lighting" that is present on Mainstreet west of 5th
Avenue. Considering a prime objective of the project is to tie this segment of Main street into the
I segment to the west, it is recommended that a new system similar to the system to the west be
installed.
I
Public utilities, including watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer:
I All of the existing public utilities will be examined closely as the street is under construction. It is
not expected that any of the facilities will require significant reconstruction. It may be desirable to
extend a storm sewer line through the segment. This will be studied more thoroughly during the
I detailed design process.
,/1 Private utilities, including gas, telephone, cable TV, and electric: The gas
company and the telephone company have indicated that they desire to replace their facilities
I Page 6
I
I
I
I within the Mainstreet right of way through out the length of the project. It is recommended that
close coordination mth these companies occur to minimize the disruption to the project schedule.
None of the other private utility companies have indicated a need to reconstruct their facilities.
I
I Landscaping amenities and street furniture: The concept plan for the project
indicates the extensive landscaping that is proposed. Approximately 30 trees and 200 shrubs are
proposed for the planters and setback areas along this segment of Main street. A major planting
I and Mainstreet monument area is proposed for the area of Mainstreet between the ramp and
Washington Avenue. It will be necessary to have this plan approved by MnDOT. However, early
indications are that the approval will be possible under a permit arrangement. If the noise wall is
I taken down, MnDOT has indicated that the City will be responsible for any future noise
abatement measures should they be necessary.
It is recommended that a noise study be completed on the noise wall removal and landscape
I replacement to ascertain what the impact may be. In addition to the landscaping of this area,
signage identifying the Mainstreet presence is recommended. Figure Two demonstrates the
concept plan for the segment with the landscaping for this area shown in color. A sign similar to
I the monument constructed on the easterly border of the City on Excelsior Boulevard is suggested.
I Setback area improvements: The wood planter boxes that are in place along both
I sides of Mainstreet are proposed to be used in several locations in combination mth landscaping
to complete the setbacks throughout the project length. The concept plan for the project indicates
these locations.
I
Visibility and signage improvements near Highway #169 ramp: See the
I landscaping section for comments on this item. It is recommended that further discussions with
the property owners be pursued relative to this design activity. The neighborhood to the north
I needs to be consulted relative to noise problems that could be activated if a portion of the noise
wan is removed.
I Signage improvements at the 5th Avenue intersection and east to
I Washington A ven ue: It is recommended that a similar signing plan that was utilized on
Mainstreet to the west be used throughout this segment. Parking signs and infonnation signs
would be placed on their own post rather than attached to the light poles. Additionally, a unique
I signage plan is recommended for Washington Avenue at the transition area to Mainstreet. The
objective would be to introduce the Mainstreet environment to the motorist traveling southbound.
I Page 7
I
I
I
I Fire lines for private properties: We have requested input on this infrastructure
I element from all the property owners. To date, we have had only one response. Further activity
on this item will be pursued prior to the public hearing.
I \Vork on private property: We have been contacted by the owner of the car wash
I relative to doing work on his property. Additionally, the Burger King manager has indicated a
need to have us look at drainage work on his property. These items are included in the cost
estimate, but need to be studied further as to whether they are feasible and can be included within
I the scope of the Mainstreet project.
I Traffic study and discussion of impacts: We have reviewed the traffic counts on
Mainstreet that were taken by the City during May, 1994. Comparing this data to the traffic that
I was counted in this same area in 1990 yields similar traffic counts. It is our estimation that no
perceptible change in traffic patterns will be caused by the Mainstreet improvements. The May
traffic counts are included in the appendix to this report.
I
I CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING, PROPERTY OWNER IMPACT
I
I Methods of undertaking construction to minimize disruption to
businesses and residential property during the period of construction:
The street is proposed to be constructed in a similar manner as Mainstreet to the west. The
I contractor would be aJlowed to complete one-half of the streetscape project at a time. Traffic
would be carried on the other half of the street at all times. Sidewalks that front the buildings and
provide pedestrian access would be maintained for as long a period of time as is possible prior to
I the new sidewalks being placed, Disruption would be limited to a matter of a few days while the
new sidewalk is placed and allowed to harden. During this time, temporary access walkways
would be utilized.
I As was the case during the west Mainstreet construction project, the City would allow each of the
property owners to place signage at appropriate points to explain to the traveling public how to
I get to their business. Additionally, there would be a regular construction newsletter explaining
what is happening on the project. Periodic field meetings with the property owners would be held
I as the merits of the project demand. The objective will be to communicate and coordinate with
Page 8
I
I
I
I the property owners to alleviate the disruption that the construction tends to cause to the highest
degree possible.
I Project schedule: The appendix contains a project schedule that indicates commencement
I of construction near the end of August. This would allow the project to be completed near the
end of October towards the middle of November. It is probable that some of the landscaping and
amenities would have to be placed during the Spring of 1995 under this schedule. The assessment
I hearing is projected to be held during the winter months as the construction of the project is
nearly complete. In the event that the City wished to delay the assessment hearing until all of the
construction activity is complete, the hearing could be held in the summer of 1995.
I
I FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECT
I MSAS designation of Mainstreet east of 5th Avenue: Currently Mainstreet
west of 5th A venue to Shady Oak Road is a Municipal State Aid route. Mainstreet east of 5th
I A venue is not on the MSA system. The City could make revisions to its State Aid system and
include this section of Main street on the MSA system. However, the route would have to extend
to 2nd Street from 5th Avenue to complete a continuous route which ends at a major collector
I street. In order to make this revision, another route in the City would have to be removed from
the MSA system to gain a mileage allocation equal to what is needed for this addition,
I approximately 0.3 mile.
The primary problem is not the revision discussed in the preceeding paragraph, but the impact to
I the project schedule that would be caused by the application for the MSA system revision. If the
route were revised to a MSA status, prior to bidding this project, the State Aid office would have
to approve the design plans, The actual allocation of this route to the State Aid system would
I take approximately six months to complete. Therefore, construction bidding would have to be
deferred to 1995.
I The second problem related to MSA designation is the availability ofMSA funds in the City of
Hopkins allocation from the State for construction on this segment. Approximately 60% of the
cost estimate (see next section) would qualify for State Aid funding. However, City staff have
I indicated their MSA allocations for the next live years are programmed for other improvement
projects within the City on other State Aid routes.
I
Fund summary for the project (expenditures and revenues): The following
I matrices summarizes the expenditures and revenues that are estimated for the project. A detailed
Page 9
I
------
I
I
I cost estimate for the project is included in the appendix. All of the estimates contained in this
report include a 30% overhead figure which includes approximately 10% for contingencies, 15%
for planning and engineering, and 5% for interest expense and administration costs.
I The total cost of the project, including overhead, is estimated at $480,240. Contained in the
appendices are detailed cost estimate sheets categorized as shown below:
I Expenditure Categories
I Street, Curb and Gutter: $ 234,110
Utilities $ 71,435
I
Street Lighting $ 45,465
I Sidewalks, street amenities, landscaping $ 83,290
I Equipment purchases, street furniture $ 45.940
Total of all Expenditure categories $ 480,240
I
Revenue Categories
I Property Assessments (see preliminary assessment roll in the appendix) $ 96,870
Unique assessments (fire lines, filling of sJudge tanks, etc.) $ 15,000
I Utility Funds. $ 71,500
City Improvement Policy 70/30 Participation
30% City cost (G.O. Bonds) $ 95,220
I Tax Increment Financing $ 201.650
I Total of all Revenue Categories $ 480,240
I
Preliminary Assessment information: The next page of this report contains a table
I indicating a preliminary assessment roll for the project proposed within this report. Assessments ,
constitute approximately 20% of the project revenue. The estimated assessments are derived
I from the assessments levied on the Mainstreet project west of 5th Avenue with a slight
inflationary indices attached. It js emphasized these numbers are preliminary and are
estimates. The property descriptions (front footage) are taken from P.I.D. reports that
I have not been verified by the City staff or the County.
Page 10
I
I
I
.
I
I CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
I The project as described in this report and accompanying drawings, tables and figures, is feasible
I to construct as proposed. Based upon the preliminary assessment information, which has been
derived from the Mainstreet costs that were assessed to the west of 5th Avenue, the improvement
project would benefit the properties included in the assessment district at least to the degree of the
I magnitude of the preliminary assessment rolL It is recommended that a public hearing be officially
advertised in the local newspaper for the first City Council meeting in July, 1994. Public hearing
notifications should be mailed to the appropriate property owners within the proposed assessment
I district and to others who have participated in the project design process. It is recommended that
a public meeting be held to discuss additional input to this report prior to the public hearing in
front of the City CounciL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Page 11
I
o'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachments in the Appendices:
I
. Appendix: Material that was submitted to MnDOT regarding the ramp connection
I and the April 14, 1994 MnDOT letter.
I . Appendix: Material concerning the May 6 property owners meeting
Letter to the property owners
Agenda for the May 6 meeting
I Mailing list
Sign-in list of people attending the meeting
I . Appendix: HBCA agenda for the General Membership meeting dated 5/12/94
. Appendix: Property Owner information sheet (survey)
I . Appendix: Traffic counts on Mainstreet and Washington Avenue
I . Appendix: Project Schedule sheet, 8.5 X 14"
I . Appendix: Det:liJed Cost Estimate, 3 sheets
-
-
I
I
Mainstreet Reconstruction PrOlect Feasibility Report paqe 36
I ( 13 ) Special plaza areas at the intersections of 8th Avenue
I and Mainstreet in the northeast quadrant and at 9th Avenue in
the southwest quadrant including the addition of a clock
I tower.
I ( 1 4 ) New bus shelters and plaza areas at the high load count
areas.
I Preliminary plan sketches have been created for Concept #2 for the
I five segments of the project. They are provided in a separately
printed document for the reader's review.
I
I HIGHWAY 169 RAMP ALTERNATIVE
I
I During the design process, a suggestion was made to review a
possible off rarnp directly onto Mainstreet from the southbound
I Highway 169-Excelsior Boulevard ramp. The focus was to provide
I immediate access to Mainstreet from a highly traveled highwaYi thus
improving downtown accessibility. After meeting with the
a
I Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) confirming that an
off ramp from the existing ramp may be possible, four layouts were
I developed (alternatives 1 I 1 A, 1 B, and 1 C) . Each of these layouts
I are included in this report as Figures 14 thru 1 7 .
During the review of the ramp layouts with the Mainstreet design
,I
committee, it was felt that a traffic study should be undertaken to
I demonstrate the potential magnitude of traffic that might use the
ramp if it were to be constructed. On July 19 a traffic pattern
I and count study were undertaken at the locations shown on Figure
-
C'")
Q
~:r
-
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I co
c
0
'(j)
U"J,
I C)
-0
.....
0..
"0
I 0
0 0
3
-
(Jl
I aJ
::2:
--
I
I
I
I ~~ ~
w
~
I 00 2:
l.()
I ~
=:l
c.9
I ~
I
I
I
I
I ~ ,~r~
~,-\~~
I "3 (J,/ // . 'J '0
I' ',- /,/,1
'n - ,. ~ '1
'\~ Q - ,/~l _r'~
\! I l...............:J
II ~, In;j ~~~1
v \ l'.r:..... ','
, .......... -
: 0 1-'7 (J 0
I )) 2 ~ 0_0
. rc
I J_
UJ
I
I .1
0'
ci
- I
I wi
WI
.S:: I
~I
I ~I
~_ ro .
-' C
/,-, 0
.. -. -. .u, .u)
I - i ~
_. ~ -
.. . . .;.-../ -
. .~. ~,
I ' "0 I
o'
01
v ;:
I a: ~ i
~ ~ I
\).l ':a.
0.-
~ ,
~
~
\)1
~
;&.
0.16 0
~
--f" \
.
..0
~
~ 'f-t-
<1'
.....
0'
~
~
D
~
\:0
;.z
c
(
\
\ ..0
, .
,
, '-j~
,
:>
,
,
\
\
,
-
-
Vi"S
0
()
~r
.
to
("-l
0)
<1,(
I
I
I Mainstreet Reconstruction Project Feasibility Report paqe 41
I 18. License plates on vehicles were recorded at the Highway
I 169-Excelsior Boulevard south bound off ramp _ other recorders
noted the license plate numbers at the locations shown on Figure
I 18. The computer correlated the plate numbers and the results
indicate the traffic that appears to be destined for Mainstreet.
I This is the traffic that would likely use a direct access ramp.
I The following special discussion is made from the results of the
access ramp traffic study. For a 24 hour period the southbound
I
exit ramp has a total traffic volume of 9600 vehicles. Of this
I total, 4900 turn right and travel westbound on Excelsior Boulevard
(County 3) . This 4900 volume includes the vehicles that
access
I downtown by turning on 5th, 8th, 9th or 11th Avenues. Figure 18
i summarizes the magnitude of these movements at each intersection.
I Analysis of these volumes suggests that approximately 1700-2000
I vehicles that presently enter Mainstreet via the circuitous County
Road 3 route would use a ramp from Highway 169 to enter downtown
I more directly. That volume does not include any new traffic
generation that would be developed due to more direct access to
I Mainstreet businesses.
,
I The area south of County Road 3 served by 5th Avenue (Le. Super
Val u and Knox area) is a primary destination for truck traffic.
I
Concern has been expressed that a direct ramp to Mainstreet could
,
I also be used as a "short cut" route for trucks accessing that area.
The reason for this is that during the busiest traffic periods of
I the day trucks may experience difficulty weaving from the exit ramp
I
I a.. OJ
~ "<::'"
- :E
'" w
a:: ~ G
I ~\O a: <
-", c....
-;:' ~ 0)
NN c.o
c:::
T'"" ,.-
I :I: w
S 3^t1 l- e:
:::J
. ~ . . . - . .... '.- 0_-. G
I u...
I
I ~
e
--
::I:
L z w
I :: >
0 +
::I: 0
CJ'J 0
3NW" 0 J[
I '" C\I
W I
I-- 0
::l 0
0 t-- "S
'N M T"" J "S "3NJ
I a: a::
>
u ~ a:
z > a:
N 0 Z c:t ] 's
I I-- ~ U
en 0 c
W ...J
, ;: I-- ::l
I N Z 0 :J[ 'S
I ...J :: ::
UJ 0
~ CI I--
i w :J
"3N:;,' a: c: w w 'S
I I- W a: :E
l- I--
e Z en ::l
Z UJ :z -I
I 3^,y' ~ - 0 :J "S "3M
en <C >
0') UJ :: i:Q
<0 ...J
T"" U 0 ;: Z
.3N~ :I: :I: I-- .S "3,W 0
I-- 0
I UJ O':l ~ "0 l-
I- > <.c c U C
T"" m N :::J c
X 0 -
2NJ W 0 CC Cf) 0:
CJ'J f- If
I ~ Q') 0 UJ c.:
~ c.. 0 z c
:E O':l I ---
CI w 0 c
- :I: 'I:t
-- <C U c.:
I ::I: l- e: u.. \'H'l:., W cr
I UJ LL. I- 0 0: rc
> 0 U ~ l- e
0 UJ ..-.:: W C
- 3 N1 0 ~ a:: '- u.J u:
0 0
I O'l oqo - a: u:
'I:t 'I:t C )f- 0 a.. I- ~
'- (j) c
. . . - Z '-
c: ~ "3 0....
3.NW" 4) <:(
"u~1 u N
I ~l N ~ 2: 't
a:: ~(>j C
fQ G (fJ C
2: Z ::
3\ ('oj N
"3NW" "'I .... ~ ..-
'3^,1 -
- 0- f.[;
I t- o.:
/ 0 ;:
I
oN II "~^'I:t
I I
I
I
Mainstreet Reconstruction Project Feasibility Report Paqe 43
I
across to the left turn lane at nearby 5th Avenue. The ramp would
I allow trucks to travel along Mainstreet to 5th Avenue, then turn
I: left and travel south on 5th Avenue to cross County Road 3 .
Because of this concern a separate truck tally was made during the
Ii ramp traffic survey. Based on these counts, abou t 100 trucks per
day from southbound Highway 169 are destined to that area and could
I: potentially be added to the segment of Mainstreet east of 5th
Ii Avenue. This concern can be alleviated through the proper
operation of the traffic signals on the route.
II In producing design alternatives for the Highway 169 ramp to
1\ Mainstreet, an alternative was developed which would require the
closure of Washington Avenue. Washington Avenue serves as a
I neighborhood collector roadway in this area. It has further
importance as a linkage roadway between the west and east side of
I Highway 169 serving the Honeywell and Super Valu industrial area.
I Traffic counts were made on Washington Avenue east of Mainstreet in
the vicinity of Park Lane during July, 1990. These counts show a
i daily volume 2900 vehicles. the importance of
I of Because of
Washington Avenue in terms of function and traffic volume served,
I the ramp alternative which requires the closure of washington
I Avenue is not recommended for further development or consideration.
Meetings with the Mainstreet design committee and the directly
I affected property owners lead to the conclusion that Concepts 1B or
I lC are favorable, if a ramp is constructed. Under both of these
alternatives property acquisition is minimized. It is recommended
I
I
I Mainstreet Reconstruction Proiect Feasibility Report Paqe 44
I that the design associated with Concept 1B be pursued further with
I MnDOT . The cost estimated for this alternative, including right of
way and project overhead costs, is $300,000.
I
I CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING AND PROPERTY OWNER IMPACT
Ii
It is expected that reconstruction of segments one thru five will
I take longer than one construction season. Figure 19 indicates a
I
I possible construction schedule beginning with construction in 1991.
Segments two and three, from east of 5th Avenue to 12th Avenue are
;
I
II proposed for 1991 construction, with the other segments following
.1 in 1992. The controlling feature of the construction activities 1S
the utility construction. Depths of construction excavation for
I the sanitary sewer is approximately 18 feet. Other utilities will
II be in the range of 2 to 10 feet deep. I:1cluding the utility
I
II services for the individual building structures I the entire 66 foot
I right of way area will be necessary to complete the underground
i
II utility construction.
i
I: One of the key concerns of property owners and business people
directly affected by the proposed reconstruction of Mainstreet is
'I" the disruption to their normal business operation. Given the
i nature of the proposed improvement and the limited right of way
II
areal there is no other reasonable way to construct the
I
II improvements than to close portions of Mainstreet to through
i
!
I'
I t~ Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
I W3le:'S Edge Building
1500 West COWley Road B2
Ros.evil.l.e., Minnesota 55113
I April 14, 1994
I
I Mr. Lee Gustafson, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Hopkins
I 1010 Fint Street South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 .
.
I Dear Mr. Gustafson:
SUBJEcr: Proposed Mainstreet Ramp Connection to
I Trunk Highway 169 and .&:celsior Boulevard
Hopkins, Hennepin County
C.S. 2745
I The Minnesota Department of Transpo.rt1tion (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the City of Hopkins proposal
to provide a ramp connection from :Mainstreet to the Trunk Highway (T.H-) 169~celsior Boulevard
I exit ramp.
We appIlXiate the opportUnity to ~ew and comment on your proposal. Though we understand the
I needs of metropolitan communities to provide access for motorists, we must also maintrin the safety
of our roadways. ConstrUcting a connection from the T.E. 169 exit ramp is not a condition which
MnJDOT would allow to occur. The proposed slip rn.m:p is in a location where vehicles are decelerating
I from a high speed road'NaY 1 approaclring a traffic signal, and making decisions about where and when
to go. To introduce a ramp which would .require Mainstreet-bound traffic to decelerate faster,
introduces a hazard to all ramp tr.l.ffic. In addition, the distance and time saved. by motorists attempting
I to access Mainst:r'ee4 via the proposed connection~ does not appear to justify the total expense of this
project from our standpoint.
I Balancing the concems of a bUsiness community with the safety of the motoring public is not an easy
task. Weare available to answer any other questions or comments you may have. Please feel free to
contact Ruth Ann Sobnosky of our Planning Section at 582-1386 or Sue Scharenbroich, Division Traffic
I Engineer, at 779-5185 with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
I ......
J
I Scott L. McBride, P.E.
Planning and Programming Engineer
I
An Equnl OppoT1unity Employer
I TOTAL P _ 03
I
I
I April 28, 1994
C I T Y 0 F H 0 P K I N S
I Mr. Mark SennIHBCAlTwin West
10550 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnetonka, M:l'{ 55343
I Dear Property Owner or Interested Party:
I Local street improvements on the east end of Main street between 5th Avenue and Washington
Avenue are being contemplated by the City of Hopkins in 1994. The proposed improvements
I include the reconstruction of the existing street in a similar fashion as Mainstreet east of 5th
Avenue. Additionally, underground utilities in the street section \IIill be analyzed to detennine any
problem areas. Necessary repairs, or additions, to the utility system would be completed prior to I
I the renovation of the street surtace area.
The City Council has directed the City's engineering consultant, RLK Associates, to complete an
I engineering feasibility study for the project to identify problem areas and to address property
owner issues. The completed report will include recommendations for the reconstruction of
Mainstreet and provide estimated construction costs. A neighborhood informational meeting
I process will be scheduled during the planning of the improvement project.
As an initiation to the Mainstreet improvement project, an inionnational meeting is scheduled for
I May 6, at 7:30 AM in City Hall, the Raspberry Room At this meeting, which you are :
encouraged to attend, information concerning preliminary design details will be available. I
Property owners in attendance wiU be requested to comment on the proposed streetscape project. I
I If you are unable to attend the meeting, the following will brief you on the highlights of the
proposed improvement: I
I . A Project Review Committee 'Nill be established with interested members of the community to
work with the consultant on the design of the project. You are invited to be a. member of this
I group;
. Mainstreet east of 5th Avenue is proposed to be reconstructed similar to Mainstreet west of
I 5th Avenue with a street cross-section similar in appearance including brick paving, sidewalks,
lighting, and landscaping;
I . All underground utilities wilJ be updated and repaired, if necessary, prior to the road
reconstruction. Drainage improvements using additional storm sewer will be utilized where I
necessary; I
I
I
I 1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935-8474 I
i
An Equal Opportunity Employer
n ..__._ __ __ ...__
I
Property Owner Letter
I April 28, 1994
Page 2
I . An appropriate evaluation of the street set-back areas and the adjacent parking areas will be
I completed within the limits of the engineering feasibility study;
. The connection from the Highway #169tExcelsior Boulevard ramp to Mainstreet will!!.2.! be
I considered within the provisions of this project. In February, 1994, the City requested the
MiIll1esota Department of Transportation to review a ramp connection proposal to Mainstreet
from the exit ramp. Attached is their response dated April 14, 1994. The City Council
I reviewed this access issue at the April 19 meeting and directed staff to discontinue efforts
regarding the ramp connection;
I . A construction schedule will be shared with you at the upcoming meeting which is meant to
minimize disruption to the property owners and businesses during the course of the
construction project. It is possible to construct the improvements within the construction
I season of 1994; however, given that it is already late in the year, planning and engineering will
have to progress rapidly to meet this objective;
I . These permanent street improvements are proposed to be financed, in part, by special
assessments levied against the benefiting properties. Assessments are financed by the City
I over a 15 year period of time at the current interest rate of 8%. More information about
potential project financing will be available at the meeting on May 6.
I After the completion of the engineering feasibility study, the City Council will review the
document on June 7 and may order a public hearing. The public hearing will probably be held late
in June or early in July. Prior to the public hearing, in front of the City Council, a second
I neighborhood meeting will be held (estimated to be during the second or third week in June).
It is important that your comments and questions be heard on this proposed improvement. Please
I contact Dick Koppy or Don Shaffer, members ofRLK Associates Planners and Engineers at 933-
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 Rl~ 922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933-0972
I ASSOCIATES LTD. fax: (612) 933-1153
1
I
I
1 L Introduction of Personnel - City and RLK Associates, Ltd.
A. Background of this improvement project
I" B. Goal for the meeting
C. Where are we in the planning, engineering process?
I IT. Approach and sensitivities to this project
I A. Communication/interaction with property owners (attachment)
B. Project Review Committee - informal~ next meeting 6/3/94
I C. Objectives of the property owners: Resolution of issues
D. Questionnaires for individual property ovvners (attachment)E.
1 E. Creativity in the improvement of the neighborhood problems
(1) Mainstreet
I (2) Washington Avenue
I III. Description of the street improvement projects
A. Existing Conditions layout of the project area that is being
I considered for the Mainstreet improvements (handout)
B. Discussion of the suggested project schedule ( attachment)
I IV. Project Details
I A. . Discussion of the initial findings that RLK has discovered
1 B. Project funding discussion
C. Specific input from the property owners/residents
D. Feasibility Study Investigation
I . Civil Engineering . Transportation . Infrastructure Redevelopment
. Landscape ArchItecture . Construction Management
1
I 7h,~;:'.u!tc~~..<~~ P~~r /99''1
0
~EVERLY WEXLER FINK /' X BURGER KING ,/ DOUG STERN/HOPKINS HONDA
9700 OAK RIDGE TRAIL 401 MAINSTREET X 429 MAINSTREET vi
MINNETONKA MN 55305 HOPKINS MN 55343 HOPKINS MN 55343
I . X Jl\MES · KATHERINE STROH ~
X JACK SHIMOTA/RJ WALSER / JD LINDSTROM/HOPKINS~CAF
I 314 HAINSTREET 18 PARK LANE ^ 404 MAINSTREET
HOPKINS MN 55343 HOPKINS MN 55343 HOPKINS MN 55343
I JIM EHMILLER/NAB / i-- MARX SENN/8BCA/TWINWEST / NOW SPORTS /
)(125 FIRST STREET NORTH 10550 WAYZATA BOULEVEARD 7\ 430 MAINSTREET
I HOPKINS MN 55343 MINNETONKA MN 55343 HOPKINS MN 55343
J RESTAURANT UNITS CORP ~ 'I.. .., WALSER ~ /
SINCLAIR MARKETING CO-89404
200 SIXTH STREET SOUTH 10925 VALLEY VIEW ROAD, #101 ;< P.O. BOX 30825
I MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402-1464 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84130-01
I SINCLAIR STATION / I... THE LllTHER COMPANY V TRAKUP CORPORATION /
501 MAINSTREET 5353 WAYZATA BLVD/STE 204 y( 2112 HUNTINGTON POINT RD EA~
HOPKINS MN 55343 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416 WAYZATA MN 55391
I V
.. WALSER BARGAIN LOT
420 MAINSTREET
HOPKINS MN 55343
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I l ~ 9 t-( Ma:^~fr..A- M'7 ~ (11'
/?~c::; Se I
(?-c- ~ J k: ..K-<>-f-F 5 ~ ? /7 --.:T /'---
I I
MtJ.
1(+\'f~;P) #~ dJt/i'~ S,L FA C/1---l
7/Y??z-~ /3~~~
core.,,,, rc ~
I w · ( "r r) .--::/ tUC 2% uN 0 {-O- 3/ L( -#al i1 sl,~e.1 9J.5-;2 L/QO
JG# ~l'J;'~ 0311 /I!/97#.j;';f~ 93f=2-~OV
(1) ",r k- p-: ~ ...,-
f',t</.: 1 h 1;~/c..,.d) 01 M Un.-./??.::rk..- /2 ~ /~S'T /Vel. 935" - ,?c, 97
r~r~c k:y :;;r'#CY /1-/'1 f/t:; / j/. /'t,./-!f .7~t'r fJ J - f/%7/
C~ 9':,~ - (~/
. -(. '"' f(o..r"", " i ~
I ~ blA'>-ta+';'-" c '~l ~~~ - (!:>3 'D
D;c.-k kOrfl t;Lk ~-s~'-o(('L.
LJ7{I'h/( tiP -- / i JZ! J 6J/kl ;jiJ1~5Vl/4
W~ 77~j~/~ {dIll j RAI~E:R B9'2-~S"3~-
. 5Y $ (~)(:,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I TO ALL:
I Property Owners
Affected Citizens
I Interested People
I REMINDER
I
I There will be a meeting at 7:30 a.ill. at Burger King on Friday, Jlme 3, to
discuss the Mainstreet Improvement Project in Hopkins between 5th Street
and Highway 169. Burger King is located at 401 Mainstreet in Hopkins.
I Everyone is encouraged to attend.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I HOP S -~ ..- -. ,,---
KIN .... _:_~~- .~~
I ~USINESS :L r'iX( i1.1994 )1
C I V I C -,~~----- Jf
..:.J V~J ~ - I
'1;:.' . - \J --," ../ ; J ! - '1
I ASSOCIATION ______h__
I
Hopkins Business & Civic Association
I General Membership Meeting
I ~~~~~
Boston Garden
I I. Call to Order.Mark Senn
ll. City of Hopkins Update- Tom Harmening
I A. Parking regulations on Suburban Chevrolet Property
I B. Funding for arts facility
C. 1994 Mainstreet improvement project
I D. Street closing for Mainstreet Days
I m. Committee Updates
A. Community Relations- Penny LaVelle
lB. ProIIlotions- Ed Hanlon
I c. Economic Development- Nelson Berg/Harriet Ahlstrom
D. Membership- Ed Stiele/Chuck Poplar
I IV. Announcements
I
V. Adjourn
I
I
I
I 111~;11 \V;I\/;II:\ Hl 'uk\ .lId fll.'pkins. \1 illllCSllt;l _~:;JI I~, (I) I.": 1 ;;--11 J-I ).-:J-I
Ih\[lKII1_' ( \I1l11l11Hllt\' l.ull: II,)':;) C).,I)-I..~II
I
I
I PROPERTY O\VNER INFORMATION SHEET
CITY OF HOPKINS MAINSTREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
MAY 6, 1994
I INTRODUCTION: This is a question and answer format input sheet that is meant to
I give the project designer more information from you about the project. With your
comments, RLK will be able to have detailed information available concerning your
property that will serve as the basis for design. Please take the time necessary to give us
I your input related to the individual questions on the next two pages. Write your
responses directly on this paper and return to us by May 18. If this is a problem, please
call Dick Koppy at RLK Associates directly with your comments at 933-8258, extension
I 103, or Don Shaffer, extension lID. Thank you for your cooperation. llitimately, we
hope this process is meaningful and will result in a better project for you and the City of
Hopkins. Thank you. Richard Koppy, RLK Associates, Ltd.
I
1. INFORMATION ABOUT THE OWNER AND/OR TENANT (5):
I OWNER'S NA1vIE AND ADDRESS
I TENANTS NAlvIE
NUTvIBER OF TENANTS IN BUILDING RESIDENCE BUSINESS
IF BUSINESS, HOURS OF OPERATION
I OWNERSHIP PERIOD OF TIME (from _ to--.J
APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF TRIPS PER DAY FROM THE PROPERTY ON MAINSTREET:
. AUTOMOBILE (includes car, pickup and van)
I . TRUCK (pnrnarily commercial purpose vehicle)
WHO SHOULD WE CONTACT REGARDING INFORMATION ABOUT THIS
I PROJECT?
2. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPERTY:
I AGE OF STRUCTURE ESTIMATED AREA OF PROPERTY (acres or sJ.)
OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT PROPERTY CONDITIONS THAT RELATE TO THE STREET DESIGN
I SUCH.-'\S Dl-LVN_"\GE. ELEV_-\TlON, VEHICULAR ACCESS, & CONSTRUCTION INTERRUPTION:
I
WHERE IS YOUR TRASH PICK-UP LOCATED?
I WHERE DO YOUR KMPLOYEES P ARl( THEIR VEHICLES?
WHERE DO YOUR CUSTOMERS PARK?
DO YOU NEED SPECIAL TYPES OF SIGNING FOR YOUR CUSTOMERS DURING THE PERIOD OF
I CONSTRUCTION?
I
I Property Owner Information Sheet
I Page 2
DO YOU HAVE A DRAINAGE PROBLEM ON YOUR PROPERTY OR IN THE STREET THAT YOU
WOUL-P LIKE TO SEE THE ENGINEER REVIEW? PLEASE EXPLAIN:
I
I DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH YOUR WATER SERVICE OR THE MAIN IN THE STREET'?
LEAD PIPE FROM THE STREET INTO THE PROPERTY? WHAT IS THE AGE OF THE SERVICE?
, I DO YOU WISH INFORThtlATION ON THE AVAILABILITY OF ASSISTANCE WITH A SPRINKLER
SYSTEM?
I
DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH YOUR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE OR SEPTIC SYSTEM
I ON YOUR PROPERTY OR IN THE STREET? WHAT IS THE AGE OF THE SEWER SERVICE?
PLEASE EXPLAIN:
I
LOCATION AND SIZE OF THE SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERvlCE FROM THE HOUSE TO
I THE STREET (draw a sketch on the back of this sheet if you can, otherwise, explain in this space)
I PLEASE ATTACH A COpy OF A SKETCH OF YOUR PROPERTY WITH LOT DESCRIPTION IF
.
I YOU HAVE THIS AVAILABLE.
3. REVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN FOR THE PROJECT THAT IS
I UNDER DISCUSSION:
COrvlMENTS REGARDING DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
I
I SPECIAL CONCERNS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING YOUR OWN PROPERTY
I
4. OTHER CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON THE PROJECT.
I WE WILL RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTIONS DIRECTLY IF YOU SO INDICATE
(use space on the back of this page if necessary):
I Would you be interested in information on the City's Commercial Rehab Program and Sign
Grant Program?
I
I
---
I !--......~,..""\~~--~
; .1 .'~="'. '..n.--': :"': i
., ,
1~'11''11 ~"J .,,~._,""! :
I CITY OF HOPKINS ; 1;1 ,,,..,,-' _:::~.,. 'J:;
I I! j !--:::';"".-:;-~::-'_. _ - -- "_u. ___., ; i
L.~' ; 1.__ \-./ ~--ILJ LJ ~ ~ I
MEMORANDUM __UH_ -- --
I - ----~ _____u
- - - . ~
DATE: May 26, 1994
I TO: Dick Koppy, RLK r /I
FROM: Lee Gustafson, PUblic Works Direct~
I SUBJECT: Traffic Counts for Mainstreet Project
I
Attached are the traffic counts you requested the city
I collect for the Mainstreet project between 5th and
Washington Avenue South. The first set of counts were taken
on Mainstreet just east of 5th Avenue. The second set was
taken on Washington Avenue, northeast of Walser. Hopefully
I these counts will supply you with the information you were
looking for.
I If I can help you ln any other way, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
I cc: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Jim Gessele, Engineering Superintendent
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I *** Weekly Summary For Week Of May 15, 1994 *** 14:00 Pg 1
05-20-1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I File: M0594004.PRN Sta: 000000000002 Id: 000000000022 CommId: 0
citYfTown: Ho~kin5 County: Hennepin
Loca ~on: Was ington Ave 300' west of Park Lane Format: Lane
Lane~s: 1-1'
I Ln1- orth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Wkda~ Daily
I -~~:: Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sa
Avg. Avg.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
------- -------
01:00 - - - - 20 19 -
I 02: 00 20 20
- - - - 10 15 -
13 13
03:00 - - - - 3 3 -
I 04: 00 3 3
- - - - 3 2 -
3 3
05:00 - - - - 6 3 -
5 5
I 06: 00 - - - - 18 16 -
17 17
07:00 - - - - 35 40 -
38 38
I 08: 00 - - - - 96 86 -
91 91
09:00 - - - - 92 105 -
99 99
10:00 - - - - 78 113 -
Ill: 00 96 96
- - - - 117 132 -
125 125
12:00 - - - - 191 165 -
178 178
113: 00 - - - - 200 221 -
211 211
14:00 - - - - 158 158 -
158 158
115: 00 - - - - 166 - -
166 166
16:00 - - - 150 157 - -
154 154
. 17: 00 - - - 179 175 - -
I 18:00 177 177
- - - 198 200 - -
199 199
19:00 - - - 149 145 - -
I 20:00 147 147
- - - 116 113 - -
115 115
21:00 - - - 106 125 - -
116 116
I 22:00 - - - 98 87 - -
93 93
23:00 - - - 65 51 - -
58 58
I ~~~~~ - - - 21 35 - -
28 28
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
------- -------
Totals - - - 1082 2281 1078 -
I 2304 '2304
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Avg Wkday - - - 47.0 99.0 46.8 -
I % Avg Day - - - 47.0 99.0 46.8 -
AM Peak Hr None None None None 12:00 12:00 None
AM Count - - - - 191 165 -
I PM Peak Hr None None None 18:00 13:00 13 : 00 None
PM Count - - - 198 200 221 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
I
05-20-1994 *** Weekly Summary For Week Of May 15, 1994 *** 13:59 Pg 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------~---
I File: M0594002.PRN Sta: 000000000001 Id: 000000000001 Commld: 0
citYf~own: H9pkins County: Hennepin Lane
Loca lon: Malnstreet 100' east of 5th Avenue Format:
I Lane~s: 1-1
Lnl- orth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Wkdat Daily
I _~~:: Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sa
Avg. Avg.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
------- -------
I 01: 00 - - - - 35 42 -
39 39
02:00 - - - - 17 20 -
19 19
03:00 - - - - 12 9 -
I 04: 00 11 11
- - - - 2 3 -
3 3
05:00 - - - - 12 6 -
9 9
I 06: 00 - - - - 25 29 -
27 27
07: 00 - - - - 94 95 -
95 95
I 08: 00 - - - - 169 196 -
183 183
09:00 - - - - 262 284 -
273 273
10:00 - - - - 231 277 -
Ill: 00 254 254
- - - - 288 311 -
300 300
12: 00 - - - - 487 485 -
113: 00 486 486
- - - - 606 591 -
599 599
14:00 - - - - 387 146 -
267 267
115: 00 - - - - 320 - -
320 320
16:00 - - - 314 299 - -
307 307
117: 00 - - - 345 283 - -
314 314
18:00 - - - 390 337 - -
364 364
19:00 - - - 320 227 - -
120: 00 274 274
- - - 242 190 - -
216 216
21:00 - - - 240 239 - -
240 240
122: 00 - - - 182 158 - -
170 170
23:00 - - - 119 139 - -
129 129
I ~~~~~ - - - 55 84 - -
70 70
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
------- -------
Totals - - - 2207 4903 2494 -
I 4962 4962
-----------~-------------------------------------------------------------------~
% Avg Wkday - - - 44.5 98.8 50.3 -
I % Avg Day - - - 44.5 98.8 50.3 -
AM Peak Hr None None None None 12: 00 12:00 None
AM Count - - - - 487 485 -
I PM Peak Hr None None None 18:00 13:00 13:00 None
PM Count - - - 390 606 591 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
-
-- -
I -~-- -
- - ~I
I ~
~ -@]_t-
u
~ --
I ....
1: ()
~ -- - a.
> ~.- ::J
0 --- ---
I 2: - - ~
- '0
tt::
] - --
0 ---~.
I ti
0
~.
~ -~,~
I E
OJ
a
OJ - -
(/) -
-- --
- c
I tl I -- - ~
::l .--.- - -.... ~
~c~
C> -11-
::l (/)
<l:
-
I - - -
~
-
-- ~
-
I ll. l=...:=mmm~m=m
:E .
~
u. 6
I u. ..... ... ... ... '~.~'.:.::.:. ~~~::.=.
0 ~
I
CL
::J ~
Ul
W
~ -
I -
I-
::l -- ,
0
I ~
I- - '"
- Ol
~ t: III
I - l:l Go
~ 4: -
z n_
~ -... --
I <( [
Z .c - ~
o e ~
I- III -
~ .:i ~ --
~ -
I --
--
I ~ c
~ III
0 2
I- -
I
I
I
I
. --
I Sheet1
I HOPKINS MAINSTREET PHASE II! I i
PREUMJNARY COST ANAL YSfS I
I
I PREPARED JUNE 2, 1994 I
I
I ITEM # ITEM UNIT EST QTY. UNIT COST i EXTENSION
I
STREETS
I 1 Mobilization L.S. 11 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00
2 Grubbing EACH 5 $ 70.00 $ 350.00
3 Remove Curb & Gutter LF 1388 $ 1.75 $ 2,429.00
4 Remove Bituminous S.Y. 4000 $ 3.45 $ 13,800.00
I 5 Remove Concrete Walk S.Y. 1030 $ 0.70 $ 721.00
6 Remove Cone. Driveway SY 280 $ 4.60 $ 1,288.00
7 Remove Noise Wall L.F. 100 $ 20.00 $ 2,000.00
I 7 Remove Light Base EACH 8 $ 115.00 $ 920.00
8 Sawcut Sidewalk L.F. I 400 $ 2.40 $ 960.00
9 Sawcut Bituminous L.F. I 440 $ 3.40 .$ 1,496.00
I 10 Sawcut Concrete L.F, 200 $ 4.60 1$ 920.00
f-
11 Subgrade Prep. S.Y. 4000 $ 0.60 1$ 2,400.00
~ 12 Class 5 Aggregate TON 100 $ 13.80 $ 1,380.00
I 12 Agg. Base, 12" Thick S,Y. 3652 $ 8.25 $ 30,129.00
13 Mill Bituminous S,Y, 6001 $ 1.00 $ 600.00
1414" Bituminous Base S.Y. 3652 $ 5.50 .~
$ 20,086.00
~ 1511.5" Bituminous Binder
S.Y. 3652 $ 2.75 $ 10,043.00
I 16 1 .5" Bituminous Wear S,Y. 3652 $ 2.50 $ 9,130.00
17 Tack Coat GAL 560 $ 1.50 I $ 840.00
18 Wear Course, Modified ITON 200 $ 32.00 $ 6,400,00
I 19 Retaining Warl SF 1200 $ 15,00 I $ 18,000.00
20 Adjust Gate Valve EACH 4 $ 130.00 I $ 520.00
t--
21 Adjust Manhole EACH ! 4 $ 190.00 $ 760.00
I 22 8618 C & G L.F, 1388 $ 5.75 $ 7,981.00
23 Traffic Control L.S. 1H 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00
24 Special Signs S.F, 200 $ 40.00 $ 8,000.00
25 Inlaid Crosswalk Markers EACH 21 $ 92.00 $ 1,932.00
I ! I
Subtotal Streets I
I I $ 180,085.00
I I i
I i i i
T !
I
I
I
I
I
I Page 1
....----
I
Sheet1
I I
I I
I I
I UTllITIESI
11 Remove Storm Sewer L.F. 50 $ 10.00 $ 500.00
2 Remove Catch Basins EACH 2 $ 175.00 $ 350.00
c-- 3 Connect To Exist Storm
I EACH 1 $ 350.00 $ 350.00
4 Standard Catch Basin EACH 2 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00
5 Standard STMH EACH 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00
I 6 12" RCP LF. 50 $ 25.00 I $ 1,250.00
7 18" RCP LF. 50 $ 32.00 $ 1,600.00
8 Sanitary Spot Repair EACH 2 $ 5,200.00 $ 10,400.00
,I 9 Sanitary Service Repair EACH 2 $ 6,300.00 $ 12,600.00
10 Water Service Repair EACH 4 $ 2,300.00 $ 9,200.00
I 11 Remove/Replace Hyd EACH 2 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00
II 12 Relocate Curb Stop EACH 3 $ 1,500.00 $ 4,500.00
13 Fill Electric Vault EACH 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
14 Fill Sediment Tanks L.S. 11 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
! I I
j
I i Subtotal Utilities I 1$ 54,950.00
I I I
I
I i I
UGHTING
I 1 Refurbish High Level EACH 3 $ 480.00 $ 1,440.00
2 Install High Level EACH 2 $ 210.00 $ 420.00
~
3 Install Low Level EACH 21 $ 270.00 $ 5,670.00
4 Light Bases (All) EACH 23 $ 280.00 $ 6,440.00
I 512" Conduit (Empty) IL.F, 2000 $ 2.00 ! $ 4,000.00
~
612" Conduit L.F, 2000 $ 2.00 $ 4,000.00
71#6 Copper Conductor L.F. 4000 $ 1.00 S 4,000.00
I 8 Temporary Lighting L.S. I 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
9 Salvage Ex. High Levels EACH 8 $ 71.00 $ 568.00
176.00 I $ ~
10 Tree Receptacles EACH 11 $ 1,936.00
I 11 Modify Exist System L.S. 11 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
Subtotal Lighting $ 34,974.00
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I Page 2
I Sheet1
I I
t--- !
I SIDEWALKS/AMENITIES
1 Subgrade Prep S.Y. 1500 $ 0.60 $ 900.00
I 2 4" Concrete Walks S.F. 9324 $ 2.00 $ 18,648.00
3 2" Sleeves in Sidewalk EACH 12 $ 12.00 $ 144.00
4 Adjust Castings EACH 4 $ 190.00 $ 760.00
5 8" Concrete Drives S.Y. 275 $ 27.00 $ 7,425.00
I 6 Concrete Pavers SF 1000 $ 5.25 $ 5,250.00
7 Paver Edging L.F. 100 $ 4.00 $ 400.00
8 Timber Planter Wall L.F, 320 $ 9.00 $ 2,880.00
I 9 Concrete Steps C.Y. 2 $ 520.00 $ 1,040.00
10 Install Tree Grates EACH 11 $ 150.00 $ 1,650.00
II 11 Install Trash Recept. EACH 4 $ 150.00 $ 600.00
12 Install Benches EACH 2 $ 350.00 $ 700.00
13 Sodding w/ Topsoil S.Y. 1000 $ 3.00 $ 3,000.00
14 StreeUPlanter Trees EACH [ 30 $ 255.00 $ 7,650.00
I 15 Planter Shrubs EACH I 226 $ 30.00 S 6,780.00
16 Prairie Wildflower Seed L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
-
16 Mulch Material c.Y. 20 $ 12.00 $ 240.00
17 Decorative Sign L.S. l' $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
I
Subtotal Sidewalks... $ 64,067.00
I
I
EQUIPMENT PURCHASES
I 1 Single Low Levels EACH 19 $ 1,000.00 $ 19,000.00
2 ObI Low Levels EACH 3 $ 1,400.00 $ 4,200.00
3 Tree Grates/Frames EACH 12 $ 275.00 $ 3,300.00
I 4 Benches EACH 2 $ 420.00 $ 840.00
5 Trash Recept. EACH 4 $ 500.00 $ 2,000.00
6 Banners/Signs L.S. 1 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000,00
Subtotal Equipment 1$ 35,340.00
I
SUBTOT.STREETS I $ 180,085.00
I SUBTOT. UTILITIES ! $ 54,950,00
SUBTOT. LIGHTING i ! $ 34,974.00
I
SUBTOT. S'WALKS I I ! $ 64,067.00
I SUBTOTAL EQUIPT. I ~ i $ 35,340.00
I ., I ._-
I -1
I I . --
GRAND TOTAL I $ 369,416.00
I
I
I
I Page 3